And The Oscar Goes To...

On December 5th, NPR's All Things Considered aired a story entitled What The Movies Taught Us About Teaching. In it, we find all of our favorites -- Annie Sullivan (The Miracle Worker), Jaime Escalante (Stand and Deliver), Mark Thackeray (To Sir, With Love), Melvin B. Tolson (The Great Debaters), and of course, John Keating (The Dead Poets Society). These real and fictional teachers have many things in common, but one stands alone -- the fact that they all stand alone. All are heralded as successful lone rangers.

What we know in real life is that students are much more successful when their teachers work in collaborative teams. So, let's envision the heroic engineers in the movie Apollo 13 as a teacher team, working on a critical issue with finite resources:

That's not really that far-fetched. We do have finite resources, and we are faced with urgent student needs every day. Ironically, the same day the NPR story aired, we had district-wide professional learning. I was lucky enough to be learning with teacher teams at Eastern High School, who were collectively diving into student data and searching for real-time actions to address student learning needs related to their school improvement plan. Thankfully, we were not wearing matching ties, but we did have powerful conversations that resulted in four dynamic strategy options.

There are certainly some challenges to collaborative work. The first is time. With student learning as the non-negotiable, urgent need, what might we dump onto the table to fit the square peg into the round hole vis-a-vis time? In other words, what are some teacher-driven solutions? How might we creatively revamp our daily schedule to create more collaborative time? The second is clarity about the work to be done. Do we all understand the parameters and priorities that each team (and each individual) must honor and observe? (DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, 2014) The third is focus. When we come together, what do we do? Do we study our content standards and curriculum documents to agree on priorities and pacing? Do we discuss essential knowledge and skills we want our students to learn? Do we craft common formative assessments and then analyze results? Do we commit to one another to teach the agreed-upon curriculum? (DuFour & Marzano, 2011)

Going back to the Apollo 13 scenario, each person at each level had to be committed to the collaborative mission in order to achieve success. In Forest Hills, our mission is to "provide all learners with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to build meaningful and productive lives." Our vision is "all learners achieving individual potential," and the term "learners" is broad enough to include teachers. So, how will each of us commit to our collaborative mission and vision? Administrators? Teachers? Instructional Coaches? Here's an example to get started: As an instructional coach, I commit to support collaborative teacher teams by learning new strategies of your choice alongside you to achieve higher student learning.

Since we started with Hollywood, we'll end there as well, with a much better collaborative success story from Toy Story 2:

"There is nothing more important than each member's commitment to common purpose and a related performance goal to which the group holds itself jointly accountable." Katzenbach & Smith, 1993



-- J. Walton

The Assessments are Coming, the Assessments are Coming!

Yes, they are. But contrary to popular belief, the sky is not falling.

For the first time, our schools will all be administering state assessments in the spring. While this has been true in high school for many years, our K-8 schools are experiencing a shift from fall to spring testing. Even though this has been the norm in high school, change is occurring there as well -- the number of spring assessments at the high school level has been increased. Additionally, for the first time in our district, we will be administering the bulk of our assessments online. All of this has caused some to question instructional practices and what teachers need to do "to get kids ready."

In the words of Aaron Rodgers, R-E-L-A-X. First, there is absolutely no legitimate research that says the more we cover, the more kids learn. That bears repeating -- nothing supports the idea that the more we cover, the more kids learn. So, the idea that somehow we need to take a year's worth of content, and ignore what research does show -- that going slower, with more depth actually does enhance learning -- and get through it by the middle of April.

Second, I recently had the privilege of attending a meeting with approximately fifty local business leaders, as part of the resurrected Business Advisory Council. As this group of movers and shakers developed a list of traits and skills they wanted to see in the people they hire, not one said that being a good test-taker was important. When presented with a problem or issue, one is not given a finite set of four choices to choose a solution from; in fact, the problems and issues tend to be muddy and amorphous. What do business leaders look for? Things like this: 1) a problem-solver who will look for ways to make it happen and not wait to be told what to do; 2) someone who is comfortable with ambiguity in all phases of their work, because change is constant; 3) basic literacy skills such as spelling and grammar; 4) sophisticated skills in writing and verbal communication; 5) someone who is adaptable in unfamiliar circumstances; 6) a collaborative person, especially in face-to-face meetings; 7) a risk-taker who is willing to fail; 8) a self-starter; 9) someone who is punctual; 10) someone who understands the importance and structure of process and methodology, as opposed to someone who just seeks an answer; 11) an understanding of work/life harmony, as opposed to balance; and 12) someone who understands and respects generational differences in colleagues, customers, and clients. Racing through content is not only unsupported by research, but it flies in the face of those 21st century traits and skills our kids need.

Third, take a look at this image from Education Week:

What can we control?

• because the assessments (excluding the Classroom Activity, ACT, and Work Skills) will be administered online, each school can control dates and times to schedule testing sessions anywhere within the testing window; in other words, not all students need to be administered the same assessment at the same time, nor on the same day
• excluding the College Entrance and Work Skills Tests administered only to 11th graders, none of the test sessions are timed, and we have the ability to allow our students extra time beyond the recommended times if they need it
• our own attitude toward the assessments
• what we do every single day in our classrooms, not to "teach to a test" or race to finish early, but to build knowledge and skills that have wide application in the 21st century
• work our plan -- each individual school's improvement plan -- to achieve our stated school goals and our district vision of all learners achieving individual potential

What can we influence?

• because of a conflict between state law and federal accountability requirements at the high school level, as of today the state has only recommended that the Classroom Activity and Performance Task in both ELA and Math be administered; if we can influence a decision to forgo those this year, we can cut the testing time (and missed instruction time) for our high schoolers from 16 hours to 11 hours
• our students' attitudes toward the assessments
• our parents' attitudes toward the assessments
• our colleagues' attitudes toward the assessments

Everything else outside of our control and influence:

• the testing window
• the content of the assessments
• the format of the assessments
• the scoring of the assessments
• et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

So, if it is not something we can control or possibly influence, in the words of Disney, LET IT GO. This is a transitional year. We are transitioning to online assessments that will change again. The MDE is transitioning to a revised accountability system that will change again. Times of transition can be challenging, but they can also be opportunities to learn and to let go. Keep doing what you know is best for kids -- using research-based best practices with the Instructional Framework as your guide -- and the kids will not only survive but thrive.

-- J. Walton

If you want additional information on the new Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress ("M-Step"), go to www.michigan.gov/baa

Failure Was an Option

"Failure is not an option." We've heard it many times, in all different contexts. I myself have said it as a teacher.

So, when I heard Doug Fisher say it last Thursday during a day of learning at "Creating a Culture of Achievement," I nodded right along in agreement. Yep. That was me. No failure option in my class. But then Doug shook me to the core -- "then why was an E displayed in your syllabus grading scale?" Failure was an option. He was right, and I felt like the failure.

Right there, in black and white, in every syllabus I handed out, in every class, was this section:

The grading scale is as follows:

A         93-100%                                             C         73-76

 A-        90-92                                                  C-        70-72

 B+       87-89                                                   D+       67-69

 B          83-86                                                  D         63-66

 B-        80-82                                                   D-        60-62

C+       77-79                                                   E          0-59

My written words did not match what I said I believed. On the syllabus, I told every single student that failure was, in fact, an option.

In the last few days, I've given thought to how I might do it differently if given the chance. I know I would change the syllabus language, maybe to something like this:

Grading Scale

Our school has a percentage scale to assign letter grades for your transcript,

and you will find it in your student handbook. For purposes of this class,

know that no one will drop below a 70% in meeting the essential learning

outcomes for this class. It is not option, You and I will work together, and

do whatever it takes to ensure that you are learning. That means we may

 both have to commit to time together outside of our regular class time, and

 perhaps to different types of teaching and learning, but you are worth it.

A good first step, perhaps, but what else would I do to back it up? Words are not enough. Here is a list of ideas I brainstormed in 10 minutes. I have neither edited nor ordered them; this is my raw list:

• revise my summative assessments to be more than mere regurgitation, and share the learning expectations at the beginning of the unit by having the assessment already drafted (backward design)
• utilize formative assessments a lot more often so that both my students and I know exactly where the learning is and is not for each individual student
• less "sage on the stage" and more "guide on the side"
• sit side-by-side more often
• stand "over" students that need it
• build a relationship with every student
• call home more often, especially with good news, and stop using email so much
• encourage students to join parents at conferences, and even let students run the conference
• explain the "what" of the curriculum and the "how" of instruction to parents at every opportunity
• expand the daily learning topics I used to post to align with standards and learning expectations, and be in student-friendly language (i.e., the Instructional Framework)
• do what I tell kids is good for them: take risks, collaborate with peers, and ask for help

I don't know if it would make a difference, but it sure couldn't hurt. What ideas do you have?

I also thought about a book I recently read, entitled "The Art of Possibility." It was written by a husband and wife team, Rosamund and Benjamin Zander. She is a psychotherapist and he is a university professor/conductor of the Boston Philharmonic. As an experiment, Professor Zander gave all of his students an A at the beginning of the class. Each student had to draft a letter to him that explained what they would do over the course of the class to earn their A. He met with them at regular intervals to check on progress. If you read the book, you will see that many of the students were troubled by this process -- some did not believe him, some could not fathom a class that did not rank students against each other, and some had a hard time coming up with expectations for themselves because they were so used to others doing it for them. Interestingly, once the pressure for a letter grade was removed and students embraced the process, the students really focused on learning and meeting (or exceeding) the expectations they set for themselves. Now, I'm not advocating every teacher take the Zander approach, but it does offer a different perspective on the concept of "failure is not an option."

I truly look forward to the next opportunity that allows me a "do-over" on "failure is not an option." Not only will I hold that true for my students, but for myself as well.

-- J. Walton

Why?

“People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And what you do simply proves what you believe.”  Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action

My colleague Melanie Hoeksema quoted Simon Sinek this morning while we were meeting to plan our next learning session with principals. Wow. It really struck me. I’m not sure we spend enough time processing the “why” – we tend to just jump into the “what.” And then we wonder why there is pushback.

This followed on the heels of an impromptu conversation about an hour earlier among four of us as to some lingering pockets of resistance to the implementation of the Instructional Framework. Without the “why,” it’s probably easy to just malign the name “Marzano,” or be unable to detach the Instructional Framework from the evaluation process.

So, why the Instructional Framework? Why a three-year plan of implementation? Why spend time unpacking content standards to write learning goals, learning targets, and learning progression scales? Why spend time to intentionally plan and collaborate, focusing on student achievement? The short answer we’ve spouted: researched best practices. And it’s true, but the short answer doesn’t allow us to really process the “why.”

So, let’s move to the long answer. We know that students who have an effective teacher (i.e., high pedagogical competence) will significantly out-achieve students who have a less effective teacher (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004). This proves what we intuitively know – effective teachers make a meaningful difference in student learning. Bob Marzano and others have conducted decades of research  to identify what specific characteristics the most effective teachers possess. But even he reminds us that

            research will never be able to identify instructional strategies that

            work with every student in every class. The best research can do is

            tell us which strategies have a good chance (i.e., high probability)

            of working well with students. Individual classroom teachers must

            determine which strategies to employ with the right students at the

            right time. In effect, a good part of effective teaching is an art – hence

            the title, The Art and Science of Teaching.

(Marzano, 2007, p. 5). What the Instructional Framework offers is a sequence of effective classroom pedagogy, and we adopted it as an instructional model with the belief that all teachers can increase their expertise from year to year, which produces gains in student learning from year to year with a powerful cumulative effect (Marzano, 2013).

The first 41 elements of the Instructional Framework are encapsulated with Domain 1 – Classroom Strategies and Behaviors. Within Domain 1 are nine of the ten design questions that comprise the Instructional Framework. Those 41 elements are not an exhaustive list, but do represent the strategies that research shows have the highest effect size (Marzano, 2007). Domain 1 was our focus in year one, 2013-14.

The remaining 19 elements are distributed among Domains 2 (Planning and Preparing), 3 (Reflecting on Teaching), and 4 (Collegiality and Professionalism). Our focus now in year two is integrating Domain 1 with Domains 2 and 4; Domain 2 is where the tenth design question, “what will I do to develop effective lessons organized into a cohesive unit?” lives. Indeed, we have a professional learning goal for 2014-15: To increase our instructional expertise through collaborative, intentional planning to enhance student learning. It is guiding us in all of our learning and work this year.

At the risk of being repetitive, it bears remembering:

            [E]ffective teaching is part art and part science. The science part

            of effective teaching is founded on decades of research that has

            provided guidance for the general categories of behaviors that

            constitute effective teaching and for the specific techniques that

            can be employed within those general categories. The art part of

            teaching is founded on the dual realizations that research cannot

            provide answers for every student in every situation and that the

            same behaviors can be employed in a different order and fashion

            by two different teachers with equally beneficial results.

(Marzano, 2007, p. 191). The Instructional Framework does not require teachers to teach exactly the same way, just like no two students learn in quite the same way. But it does provide a set of proven strategies that teachers can draw upon to help all students learn at high levels.

In this district, we believe in our students, and we believe in our teachers. We believe that full implementation of the Instructional Framework will have a powerful cumulative effect for student learning. And, we believe in our vision: “All learners achieving individual potential.”

J.  Walton

P.S. If you want to hear more from Simon Sinek, check out his TEDTalk at http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action

What A Difference A Delay Makes

Today marks the first district-wide delayed start of the school year. It is part of eighteen hours of professional learning for teachers built into the instructional schedule, and complements twelve hours that were conducted the week before students returned. When I was a classroom teacher, many of my students would ask what we did during the delayed start times. Many of our other stakeholders (parents, community members, board members, etc.) may wonder the same. We owe it to everyone to be as transparent as possible.

All of our professional learning time this year is guided by our district professional learning goal: To increase our instructional expertise through collaborative, intentional planning to enhance student learning. Similar to other professions that demand continued professional education, we recognize that teachers are learners too, and that ongoing professional learning for teachers must be collaborative, intentional, and focused on the ultimate objective of high levels of learning for all students.

Here are just two examples of how the two-hour delay this morning was utilized:

School A focused on two topics – the building blocks of a “guaranteed and viable curriculum,” and SMART goals. In our district, when we use the phrase “guaranteed and viable curriculum” we mean that students have access to the same essential learning no matter who the teacher may be and that it can be taught in the allotted time, as well as that a collaborative team of teachers works to ensure that every student acquires the knowledge and skills the team has agreed are most essential (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010). Within that context, collaborative teams looked at content standards to be taught, the “big” curricular ideas, essential questions, assessments, resources, and time frame. In conjunction with that comes the concept of SMART goals – strategic, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and time-bound. Both topics relate back to the overarching school improvement goals the school has set forth in its school improvement plan.

School B also focused its efforts on school improvement. Specifically, each department in the school contributed goals and objectives to the school improvement plan in June, and this morning was a time to examine how to continue to move forward to meet them. Each department has a proficiency measure and teachers are learning new, collaborative methods in which to use available data to analyze proficiency levels. The action plan for each department is similar: 1) identify the bottom 30% of students in each grade level with specific assessment and data; 2) develop strategies to increase proficiency levels for all students with a focus on those students identified in the bottom 30%; 3) regularly use formative assessments to measure ongoing progress; and 4) use summative assessments to determine whether the measurable objective was met.

The professional learning in both of these schools this morning was tied directly to our district professional learning goal in order to enhance student learning. And these two schools are not exceptions, but rather, the “rule” for the use of this precious collaborative time. Two of our high schools are also experimenting with multiple delayed starts throughout the year in addition to those that are district-wide. With this repurposing of time, instructional staff are gaining approximately sixteen hours of additional collaborative time to intentionally focus on the quality of teaching and learning so that all students achieve at high levels.

Similar to the idea that we would not want to be treated by a doctor or advised by a lawyer who was not immersed in current best practices, we do not want our students in classrooms that are staffed by teachers who are not lifelong learners. By intentionally supporting teachers in collaborative, professional learning such as this morning’s two hour block, we are enhancing student learning for all of our kids and fully living our vision of "all learners achieving individual potential."

“Clarity precedes competence.”

The title quote is from DuFour, DuFour, Eaker (Solution Tree 2014, p. 90), and nowhere may it ring more true than the school improvement process.

Each school in our district has a School Success Team (SST). It is a formal group of teachers that meet regularly with the principal to help lead the school improvement process. In turn, those SST members meet regularly with smaller teacher teams. Throughout the process, the School Improvement Plan is drafted, implemented, evaluated, and amended, if need be. As we enter our fourth week of school, SSTs are working to bring their respective school improvement goals "to life." But what does all of that really mean, especially for the teacher who is not at that meeting? We need “clarity” before we can be “competent.”

In Michigan, every public school must draft and submit an SIP to the Michigan Department of Education. It encompasses requirements for both state and federal mandates. In addition, each district also submits a District Improvement Plan. The SIP is intended to be an ongoing, continuous cycle:

Michigan Department of Education (http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-28753_38959---,00.html)

The SIP is done in a three-year cycle, but an updated version is submitted to the state each June, for the following school year. The SIP is typically drafted by the SST and principal, but some schools also bring other teachers into the drafting process.  Goals for improvement are articulated (e.g., all students will be proficient in writing), and a measurable objective is stated (e.g., 70% of the bottom 30% will demonstrate proficiency in writing in ELA by June 2015, as measured by pre-assessment and post-assessment). The measurable objective is formulated by past performance on state benchmark assessments and the bar all schools must meet by 2022. Then, one or more strategies are chosen to achieve the goal (e.g., use of clear learning goals and monitoring progress), as well as activities within each strategy (e.g., teachers will learn how to draft clear learning goals and how to effectively monitor them). Each strategy is research-based.

The number of goals per school varies, but is generally determined by the SST, principal, and other teachers brought into the process. However, all Title I schools must have a goal in each of the four core content areas. In addition, some schools have chosen to have a goal in each grade level or department. Every school must post a copy of its SIP on either its own website or the district website.

Regardless of the number of goals, the structure is based on the premise of collective responsibility: “A shared belief that the primary responsibility of each member of the organization is to ensure high levels of learning for every child” (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2012, p.15).  Within the smaller teacher teams, usually based on grade level or content area, the teachers work collaboratively and assume collective responsibility to ensure that every student learns the essential knowledge and skills for that grade or course. The Instructional Framework, now in its second year of implementation, is the vehicle through which so much of this work is done. Domains 2 and 4 (intentional planning and collaboration) help bring Domain 1 to life. That type of work can only be done by those smaller teacher teams (often formed as professional learning communities), for some very good reasons:

·         The teachers are highly trained and credentialed in their subject.

·         The teachers know the content best.

·         The teachers, through creation, administration, and scoring of common formative assessments, have the freshest assessment data.

·         The teachers know their students best.

(Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2012, p.33)

In other words, even if there is not a goal explicitly written for every content area or grade level, there are strategies and activities within each goal that pertain to all teachers, and every teacher is implementing the Instructional Framework.

As the school year progresses, collaborative teacher teams and the SST will review data to monitor progress toward the school improvement goals. The data is best gathered through the use of common formative assessments (also part of the Instructional Framework), so that there can be a change in strategy is needed, and thus, a chance to improve, for both students and teachers. In addition, a school may decide to amend its SIP within the school year, to clarify goals, strategies, and/or activities to better serve students.

So, to hopefully bring some clarity to the process, school improvement is not a one-time event, or even a weekly meeting. It is an ongoing process that lives every day, in every classroom. It is also our commitment to measure success by results, not intentions. Go back and look at the center of the cycle graphic: student achievement. School improvement is about every student, and making decisions that are best for them, to help each one of them learn at high levels.

Take That, Reverse It

I've always loved Gene Wilder's depiction of Willy Wonka, and quoting him for the title of this blog post about backward design is perfect. Based on the work of Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, and sliding in pieces from Marzano's Cognitive System, Marzano's Assessment Strategies, and the Michigan Assessment Consortium, we have developed an Assessment-Curriculum-Instruction Blueprint to assist teachers with their collaborative, intentional planning of units. It takes the model of teaching first, drafting the assessment last and reversing it.

The Blueprint itself is a 6 hour professional learning session that will be offered later this fall for State Continuing Education Clock Hours, but this blog post will serve as a birds-eye view of the process. As we move into Domains 2 and 4 of Marzano’s Instructional Framework (“The Art and Science of Teaching”), the intentionality and collaborative work are key. Thus, assume all pieces are done in a collaborative setting. The first step is stating the purpose of the end-of-unit common assessment. Teachers ask themselves two questions – why are we creating the assessment, and what is the desired outcome? This is closely related to the second step – stating each Standard/Strand from the curriculum that will be the subject of the assessment. Depending on the content area, those standards may be from the Michigan HSCEs or GLCEs, the CCSS as adopted by Michigan, AP/College Board, unique FHPS curriculum, or other nationally-recognized standards.

Those first two steps usually do not take too much time.  Step three is where the rubber meets the road – looking at rigor.  Using Marzano’s Cognitive System, teachers take time to reflect upon what level of rigor is best suited for students to demonstrate proficiency in the identified Standards/Strands. Within the Blueprint, teachers are asked to attach one or more rigor types of each of the identified Standards/Strands. Marzano’s Cognitive System has four levels:

1) Knowledge Retrieval – recalling information from permanent memory; students are merely calling up facts, sequences, or processes exactly as they have been stored.

2) Comprehension – identifying what is important to remember and placing it into appropriate categories; students use synthesis to identify the most important parts of concepts and delete any that are insignificant or extraneous.

3) Analysis – engaging students to use what they know to create new insights and invent ways of using what they have learned in new situations.

4) Knowledge Utilization – using the highest level of cognitive processes, examples include weighing options to determine the most appropriate course of action, experimental inquiry, and problem-solving when an obstacle is encountered.

Building upon that work, teachers then move to step four and begin selecting or drafting assessment items. As the process unfolds, teachers reflect upon whether the types of items and number of items comprise a balanced assessment. In addition, teachers contemplate whether there is enough rigor and depth, given that the rigor levels possible for each assessment type are dependent on the content of the item itself:

1) Selected Response (Multiple Choice, True/False, Matching) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval, and samples students’ mastery of knowledge elements.

      2) Constructed Response (Diagram, Fill in Blank, Short Answer, Web, Concept Map, Flowchart, Graph, Table, Matrix, Illustration) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval or Comprehension, dependent on content, and samples students’ mastery of knowledge elements and suggests understanding of relationships; brief descriptions of simple problem solutions provide a window, albeit it shallow, into reasoning proficiency.

    

      3) Extended Constructed Response (Essay, Research Report, Lab Report) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval, Comprehension, Analysis, or Knowledge Utilization, dependent on content, and taps students’ understanding of relationships among elements of knowledge; longer descriptions of complex problem solutions may provide a deeper window into reasoning proficiency.

     

     4)  Performance (Presentation, Movement, Science Lab, Athletic Skill, Dramatization, Enactment, Project, Debate, Model, Exhibition, Performance Task, Portfolio) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval, Comprehension, Analysis, or Knowledge Utilization, dependent on content, and infers students’ reasoning proficiency from direct observation; evaluates skills as they are being performed; assesses both proficiency in carrying out steps in product development as well as attributes of product itself.

     5)  Observations/Conversations (Oral Questioning, Observation, Interview, Conference, Process Description, Checklist, Rating Scale, Journal Sharing, Thinking Aloud A Process, Student Self-Assessment, Peer Review) -- the rigor is equivalent to Knowledge Retrieval, Comprehension, Analysis, or Knowledge Utilization, dependent on content, and explores students’ mastery selectively but in depth; infers reasoning proficiency more deeply by asking students to think aloud ot through focused, follow-up questions; assesses skill in oral communication directly; probes knowledge of procedures and attributes of quality but not product quality itself.

Again, step threes and fours require substantial intentional planning and thought by teachers, but it is being done in a collaborative setting. It also reveals whether there is a “stretch” in the assessment to challenge students, whether every item on the assessment is tied to an identified Standard/Strand, and whether the numerical value of the item in the assessment is a weight that aligns to the rigor. In addition, teachers collaboratively build a rubric to score the assessment.

Now that the assessment is built, teachers move to planning their instruction with the Instructional Framework. The first move is within DQ1 – Communicating Learning Goals and Feedback – all three elements. As teachers then move through DQs 2-9, reflections include how and when the content represented in the assessment will be taught to ensure learning for all students, determining resources that will be needed, deciding methods and strategies to engage all learners, and what common formative assessments might be employed along the way. 

Once the assessment is administered and collaboratively scored, what to do with the data? The Blueprint suggests five beginning questions: 1) what did you notice in the data? 2) what surprised you in the data? 3) what feels good to see and is affirming? 4) is there anything that raised questions for you? 5) what do you need or want to know more about? If teams request it, an instructional coach will be present to help process the data analysis.

The data generated also has to be shared and acted upon. How will results be shared with students and parents? In what form and for what purpose? Are there any other stakeholders that should be given the data? Then, how and when will the collaborative teachers address students that did not demonstrate proficiency on the essential learning embodied in the Standards/Strands? How and when will the collaborative teachers address students who demonstrated advanced proficiency? These are collective group decisions to be made with the professional learning community context.

Finally, there is a last column on the Blueprint that is for personal reflection. It asks teachers to contemplate what they might do differently the next time in creating the assessment, planning the instruction, and teaching the content to improve student learning. Not only does this help out students, but it aids our own professional growth.

Whew.  It's a lot, we know. But we're here to work and learn right along with you. As indicated, a 6 hour session will be offered later this fall to learn more about the Blueprint and hands-on practice in a collaborative setting. If you have any comments in the interim, please post them below.

J. Walton

#Transformed

I had every intention of writing the next blog post about backward design. But a funny thing happened on the way to the keyboard...

Two different professional learning opportunities were experienced by me, and truly transformed not only me but everyone around me who were there. Merely writing about them seems too one-dimensional, so I've decided to use the tweets I sent out to best describe them in "real time."

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 12

Going to be a #wildlyexciting day with #marzano

Dr. Robert Marzano was the speaker on day 2 of Grand Valley State University's "Wildly Exciting" education conference. Even as this was tweeted, I wasn't too sure what to expect. But very quickly, the whole ballroom learned that Dr. Marzano is funny, engaging, disarming, and practical. Moreover, he is decidedly pro-teacher.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 12

"If you're not bringing your self into the classroom you're not being fair to your students." #marzano #connect

As Dr. Marzano walked the conferees through the Instructional Framework, he stressed the "art" of teaching. In Michigan, unfortunately, the state-mandated evaluation process leads some teachers to believe that teaching has become all about the "science" of measuring student growth. Dr. Marzano was emphatic that his model is far more about developing teachers and helping them grow, which in turn will lead to higher student achievement. As our district moves into intentional planning and collaboration this year (Domains 2 and 4) as means to bring Domain 1 to life, this was a great message to hear.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 12

My aha moment - teacher candidates should ask interviewers how their school will help candidate grow and develop #marzano

This was in response to Dr. Marzano speaking about the need to grow teachers' capacity as professionals, and the collective responsibility we share as a profession. As a young lawyer, I had a great mentor who reviewed all my files with me on a weekly basis, looked over any court pleadings before I filed them, and went to court with me on occasion. It wasn't because he didn't trust me, but rather, he believed that he and everyone else at our firm had a professional responsibility to and for me. And this was in a profession where we had billable hour requirements that none of these activities would qualify for, so it meant "extra" work for both of us. Even though I have not actively practiced law in thirteen years, and this experience was in the early 1990s, my mentor is still a trusted friend.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 12

"Assess more, test less" Dr. Bob #Marzano

Let's stick with the legal business for one more moment. There's a Latin saying in the law, "res ipsa loquitur" - the thing speaks for itself. We'll just leave it at that.

As our day concluded, many conferees were asking Dr. Marzano to sign books or take pictures.  Here is one of him with our rock stars, Michelle Becker and Margie Fellinger:

As if that weren't enough, the following 3 days were spent with Becky and Rick DuFour and the amazing team from Solution Tree at a PLC at Work Institute.  Approximately one thousand attendees gathered, and from FHPS we were represented by all of our principals, a teacher rep from each school, and 5 members of the Instruction Office.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

Aligning what we say with what we do every day in our schools #atplc

This is the bedrock of building the collaborative culture of a professional learning community.  Becky DuFour was clear that it is a balance of strong administrative leadership and teacher empowerment. In fact, it perfectly aligns with Dr. Marzano's work around "defined autonomy" - the freedom to act and lead within clearly articulated boundaries.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

A great team has a palpable sense of "we" #atplc

The DuFours define "team" as a "group of people working interdependently to achieve a common goal for which members are mutually accountable."  Not only does everyone need to be in the boat, pulling their oar in the same direction, but they must also be sitting in the right seat that takes advantage of the strengths they bring to the team.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

Only teachers have the power to ensure delivery of a guaranteed and viable curriculum #atplc

This is why teachers must be provided with time and space to collaborate or "co-labor". In fact, within the PLC model, the DuFours speak of collaboration as a "systematic process in which we work together interdependently to analyze and impact professional practice in order to improve our individual and collective results." Within that process, the team continually asks themselves the four critical questions, based on the belief that all kids can learn: 1) What is it we expect them to learn? 2) How will we know when they have learned it? 3) How will we respond when they don't learn? 4) How will we respond when they already know it?

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

Collaboration by invitation won't work #atplc

No one gets to opt out of the team process; smaller groups of people are a "seductive shortcut" that undermines the PLC process. This needs to be remembered this year as we bring Domains 2 and 4 forward.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

Why before how #atplc

Before we can focus on "how" we will collaborate, we need to make sure we know "why" we are collaborating. Our fundamental purpose is to help all kids learn at high levels, and if we don't, there are serious implications. We must prepare kids for their future, not our past. Kids who don't learn how to learn will not succeed in our country's economy, nor have access to the American dream. We must own that our current system is not firing on all cylinders, and we will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in critical areas.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

"There's no spot on our journey called 'good enough'." Marc Johnson #atplc

Marc is the superintendent of Sanger Unified School District in the San Joaquin Valley in California. The district has ten thousand plus students, with large groups of second language learners, children from poverty, and minorities. Ten years ago, Sanger was listed as a Program Initiative District due to low performance in the ELL group.  By 2006, it exited its status because of continued student achievement in the ELL group and all groups, and continues to grow student achievement through the PLC process. PLCs are not a weekly meeting or a one-time event; they are an ongoing process that never ends.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 13

"When you take away the work, you take away the learning." Tim Kanold #atplc

Tim was the past director of math and science at Adlai E. Stevenson High School, where he taught for many years. This quote was in response to an audience question about his experience as a teacher in the PLC process. Tim acknowledged that the work is hard, but if we believe that all kids can learn, it is the necessary work to help teachers grow and learn so that they can best serve all kids. In other words, leaders who try to take this work away from teachers, ostensibly to "help" them, actually harm teachers.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 14

"Every person who enters the field of education has both an opportunity and an obligation to be a leader." Rick #DuFour #atplc

Rick's keynote address -- "Leaders Wanted" -- began our second day of learning. I was so engrossed in this presentation (and a later one in the afternoon), I tweeted only twice that day. This first tweet was based on Rick's belief that school leadership is not only open to everyone, it is the professional responsibility of everyone. Leadership cannot be based on a hierarchical position because no single person has all the expertise, skill, or energy to do it all. Obviously, there are levels of leadership within a school district: "1) a central office team that speaks with one voice; 2) principals who distribute shared leadership through a guiding coalition and opportunities for teacher leadership; and 3) teachers who work in collaborative teams that demonstrate situational leadership and take collective responsibility for student learning."

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 14

"Let's remove the phrase 'I'm just a teacher' from our profession." Rick #DuFour #atplc

This statement received a loud ovation from the audience. As Rick elaborated, any obstacles encountered on the way to achieving the fundamental purpose of a school (all kids learning at high levels) via PLCs need solutions proposed and championed by teachers, and those teachers need to be provided resources and support for success from principals. The non-negotiable is student learning.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 15

Working in collaborative teams to focus on learning is NOT a new "plate." It's the dishwasher to pull all plates in & clean them up. #atplc

Day 3 was a half-day, and the keynote was at the conclusion. I spent the first part of the morning with Tim Brown in a session entitled, "From Forming to Performing: What Does a Leadership Team Need to Know and Do?" There were so many great take-aways, but one of them was that a PLC is not another "initiative." As Tim rhetorically posed, "why or how is a focus on learning an 'initiative'? Why or how is working collaboratively an 'initiative'?" One of the slides in the learning materials contains a quote from Becky DuFour as to what a PLC is: "An ongoing process, in which educators work collaboratively, in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research, to achieve better results for the students they serve."

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 15

If we embrace that all students will succeed, learning must be a guarantee, not an invitation. #atplc #AnthonyMuhammad #paradigmshift

Our learning was brought to a rousing conclusion when everyone gathered together to listen to Anthony Muhammad, who was a teacher and principal in Michigan. As Jon Gregory later said to me, "I could have listened to him all day!" We have to embrace high levels of learning for all students as the reason our school exists, and as the non-negotiable responsibility of every single teacher within our school.

Judy Walton @FHPScoach · Aug 15

True PLCs mean we give up the rhetoric of equality & actually all do the work together to guarantee all kids learn. #atplc #AnthonyMuhammad

Finally, no more excuses. Every student must be validated and affirmed, no matter the unique cultural norms each student comes in with.  As Dr. Muhammad writes in his book, The Will to Lead, the Skill to Teach, "respect and affirmation lead to achievement." Instead of trying to assimilate students into our antiquated, dominant culture of control, manipulation, standardization, and control that we were schooled in, we need to educate students in a new culture of liberation, development, creativity, and empowerment.


Thanks for reading, and please share your thoughts in the comment section. Excited to begin a new school year #transformed.